There's a dark future timeline where snark becomes the new "don't use any em-dashes" that people inject even more of to intentionally look human, since empathy and patience read as..robotic.
AI models decompose problems down into tiny pieces that exist in their training data, so in a sense, you're correct.
Though that's also what makes humans so good at solving problems as well, it turns out.
Also, slight tangent: but I do find the "clanker" insult kind of funny. I feel like it counter-intuitively makes the models sound cooler than they are, if anything. I love clankin' shit.
The amount of computations for a human to do the same tasks is thousands of orders of magnitudes less. And when a human learns these things they usually remember how to, and are able to extrapolate that knowledge into new and fresh problem spaces. That is how the first person to run CPython in WASM did that, and that is why the plagarism machine can now do the same (only a thousand times more lame and uninspiring).
Next time you get a new and a fresh and an inspiring idea, and you spend hours solving a unique problem nobody has ever done before. You can take comfort in the fact that a few months later some lame and uninspiring developer can write the same problem in a prompt and get the plagiarism machine to steal your work, just in a more lame and uninspiring way.
>The amount of computations for a human to do the same tasks is thousands of orders of magnitudes less.
That may very well be true now. And in fact, this was true of more rudimentary calculations early on in computing history, where humans were definitely more efficient, particularly for more abstract mathematics. But Moore's Law comes at you fast. Even without more efficient compute, it's rather wild how much more efficient models are becoming these days just from algorithmic and training improvements.
So, maybe for now, certainly. Are you confident that will be the case in 5-10 years? And is that really your barometer for success?
>And when a human learns these things they usually remember how to, and are able to extrapolate that knowledge into new and fresh problem spaces.
That is certainly a limitation for now, but plenty of academic research is being done on how to address that in a more individualized way. That said, the models also have the advantage of synthesizing learnings from user interactivity back into a future release and essentially applying that globally, which is pretty neat.
There's also some cool techniques to sort of bridge the gap today, like compound engineering.
>Next time you get a new and a fresh and an inspiring idea, and you spend hours solving a unique problem nobody has ever done before. You can take comfort in the fact that a few months later some lame and uninspiring developer can write the same problem in a prompt and get the plagiarism machine to steal your work, just in a more lame and uninspiring way.
But that's the thing: it's becoming pretty clear that the "plagiarism machine" can probably take that same problem in a prompt, having never been trained on my code, and still solve it.
In that case...maybe it doesn't feel great to have someone copy my idea. But that is certainly not plagiarism in the way you mean it. And when you put ideas out into the world, you can't be certain that someone else won't copy and remix it into something new. That's kind of how the world works already, but we're just seeing the barrier to entry decline.
> Are you confident that will be the case in 5-10 years?
Yes, I am. I am very confident that general purpose digital computers will never be more efficient then human minds in generating moderately complex code.
Why am I so confident... Well, it has been over 10 years since AlphaGo beat top go player Lee Sedol. AlphaGo was able to beat the a world class go player by doing several thousands orders of magnitude more computations then Lee Sedol, and it did so by spending several orders of magnitude more energy then the top human go player. Today, over 10 years later, the top go machines are able to beat world class go players much easier, but still do so using the exact same strategy of outcomputing the humans with thousands of orders of magnitude more computations, and spending orders of magnitudes more energy.
Things did not change in the past 10 years, I see no reason why it should change 10 years from now.
What has not change is the strategy of throwing a gargantious amount of computations at the problem. If anything we throw more computations at more problems now than in 2016 (and in 1997 for that matter). The underlying technology is pretty much the same, just more parameters, more calculations, etc. Yes every individual calculations takes less power now then in 2016, but we make up for that by making millions of millions of more calculations, even for simpler tasks.
Sure, but there will be an upper bound after which we will be close to human level performance on the vast majority of tasks, and then at that point the focus becomes efficiency (or a continuing road to superintelligence for some tasks).
But regardless, compute will get to a point where human level intelligence close to as efficient as we are. You could argue it already is today, when you factor in the resources that the average person in the west already uses in terms of their overall impact on the planet.
You are describing a science fiction. There is nothing in the measured reality which indicate your predictions will come close to materialize.
I can just as well describe the future evolution of the internal combustion engine and claim it will get more and more efficient and eventually we will be able to burn oil so efficiently that our personal vehicles can fly through the atmosphere at twice the speed of sound.
There is limitations to digital computers just as there are limitations to internal combustion engines. Our brains are not digital computers. When we use our brains we don’t just do a bunch of linear algebra.
>I can just as well describe the future evolution of the internal combustion engine and claim it will get more and more efficient and eventually we will be able to burn oil so efficiently that our personal vehicles can fly through the atmosphere at twice the speed of sound.
This is a silly comparison. There is a certain quantity of energy stored in oil, so we know what peak efficiency looks like. We don't actually know what amount of energy is required to solve certain problems. We quite literally have models with quite a bit of capability that can run locally on a phone today, right alongside Stockfish, for example.
That said, this feels like a strange tangent: I'm not sure it's that important that the models be as energy efficient as a human brain. We don't avoid cars because they're less energy efficient than our legs. ;)
Point is that both are science fiction narratives and neither reflect reality in any way what-so-ever. How fast a car can drive and how much a LLMs can compute are bounded quantities, limited by the physical reality. In both cases we can imagine a world where this limit does not exist, but that is not the reality we live in.
This matters because unlike cars LLMs are only doing stuff we can already do using our brains, just several orders of magnitudes less efficiently. Cars can at least take us distances we would never be able to using our muscles. In comparison, if I need to compile CPython into a WASM binary I can simply download a library that does it, or copy paste code in a few seconds, for a million billionth of the energy it takes an LLM to do the same. Except when I download the library or copy-paste the code I (hopefully) attribute the original author and give them credit for their work.
>Point is that both are science fiction narratives and neither reflect reality in any way what-so-ever. How fast a car can drive and how much a LLMs can compute are bounded quantities, limited by the physical reality. In both cases we can imagine a world where this limit does not exist, but that is not the reality we live in.
I'm suggesting that while LLMs are bounded by physical reality, that you actually don't know what that bound is. Just a few years ago we would have thought it a fantasy to have a conversational model run on a phone.
Even if you could compute it now, that would still be tied to current architectures. With appropriate incentives, we'll continue developing hardware to make these models more efficient to execute. It's very likely that you'll be able to run a Fable caliber coding model on your phone in the next five years.
>This matters because unlike cars LLMs are only doing stuff we can already do using our brains, just several orders of magnitudes less efficiently. Cars can at least take us distances we would never be able to using our muscles.
But that's not largely true of cars. The majority of trips are five miles or less and could easily be replaced with a bicycle. While I might personally use a bicycle, the majority choose a car to save a bit of time and effort.
So, please continue to enjoy your car, and I will continue to enjoy ready access to an LLM for a variety of other tasks. My inference energy costs are almost certainly less than your vehicle usage. ;)
It caught on, sure, but not exactly in the way I expected. The wild popularity of "slop" as a term for AI eventually gave way to the genericization of the word "slop" to mean "content of low quality, regardless of source", and is seemingly being used as just a derogatory term for anything that people dislike (particularly by folks in left leaning communities). For example, I've seen people refer to (clearly human written) commentary from some political commentators as "slop".
You comment kind of reinforces the idea by the fact that you have to now say "AI slop" specifically to disambiguate it. It's kind of a fascinating little turn.
But "slop" has meant low-quality stuff for a very long time. See also "swill", both analogies to pig feed.
The earliest OED2 citation of "slop" for the sense "figurative. Nonsense, rubbish; insolence" is 1952. Slop was slop long before "AI slop" was coined, and AI slop is slop from an AI.
"Slop" originated on /pol/ but I'm not gong to try to tread the needle by of the rules by trying to explain it without being offensive or triggering some filter:
The first related term here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/AI_slop#English
> All these points are valid, and OpenAI did a great job identifying potential risks, especially misuse and biases, at an early stage.
Many of the OpenAI employees who were focused on these risks in GPT-2 later founded Anthropic, notably Dario [1]. Since the beginning and continuing through today Anthropic describes itself as an "AI safety and research company" [2]
I'm not sure if the OpenAI of today has the same focus on safety, or if they do the minimum to not look irresponsible given Anthropic's effort.
>The ARR were fine but showing skewed quarterly profitability numbers by slowing down research due to hitting compute capacity suggests otherwise.
I have to say, I find this really puzzling. We know for a fact that Anthropic are making bank on metered inference. That's their biggest source of profitability, we are seeing software companies start to majorly adopt coding agents over just the last few months.
Right as the biggest driver of enterprise adoption is accelerating, and it's tied to their biggest profit vector, you find it suspect that their profits are increasing significantly?
Also, can you clarify what you mean by "slowing down research" exactly? Do you mean they're not doing big pretraining runs? Less compute available for researchers? Scaled back RL?
>Also just to confirm, AI subscriptions are definitely being sold at a loss how big I don't know but these models are much harder to run.
Maximum usage of AI subscriptions is a loss, but do we actually know how that nets out? Has anyone done any research to try to figure that out?
> can you clarify what you mean by "slowing down research"
He is claiming that they have been investing less in R&D and that this is juicing their numbers in an unsustainable way given how close the competition is to catching up. His evidence is the content and cadence of model releases recently. (I'm not taking a position one way or the other, just clarifying for you.)
> Maximum usage of AI subscriptions is a loss, but do we actually know how that nets out?
They almost certainly don't have to care. All the enterprise accounts use the API pricing AFAIK and that appears to be profitable and is expected to be the vast majority of the usage in the medium to long term (if it isn't already).
On the surface, that's quite fair. However, there's one problem: it is much easier to make statements than to verify them, and that asymmetry is part of why the internet has been slowly eroding society.
It's useful/necessary to use past writing/arguments from an author to say whether they should actually receive any further critical evaluation, or be dismissed. We shouldn't say definitively "they're always wrong, so they're wrong now". However, it's reasonable to say: the author has a demonstrated lack of credibility, so we can probably assume they're wrong here, particularly if they have been wrong in this domain so many times before. Or if they happen to be correct, it's probably not strongly demonstrated by their work.
I like how in spite of the author explaining why (father of two small children that occupy his free time), you jumped to the most negative set of possibilities. Instead, it sounds like when he's with his children, he is focusing on them instead of on productivity, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Also, if he instead chose to occupy his drive time with listening to a comedy podcast, or NPR, or even a technical podcast, I can't help but imagine you wouldn't give it a second thought, in spite of that being just as "productive" and "avoiding thinking about the tough things".
I will say, I find it fascinating that there are some philosophers and consciousness researchers who seem to be less certain. I just listened to Chris Hayes interview David Chalmers this week, whose position seemed to be that it's probably not conscious, but that we can't be certain. And more than that: he seemed open to the idea that they may become conscious under further scaling/training/advancements.
Funny enough, the models seemingly go insane and decohere into noise output in the absence of sensory input, which is remarkably similar to what would happen to a human.
That said, I'm not sure I follow what you're actually asking here? I'll also note that I'm not taking a position one way or the other, just sharing a podcast and noting that an extremely reputable scholar on the subject of consciousness seems to have a bit more uncertainty and humility than many commenting here. ;)
LLMs just wait for a prompt, so they do nothing and are just frozen in place.
I'll find time to listen to your link, it sounds interesting. My objection is the strange idea that humans are automatons that are keyed off input like a clockwork machine and operate sequentially. This is clearly not the case.
>LLMs just wait for a prompt, so they do nothing and are just frozen in place.
I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. Humans can be put into a similar state where they are unconscious and not thinking. Think of someone in a coma, for example, where we actually measure and confirm that there is no brain activity where they're in that state.
They are not actively conscious, but that doesn't nullify their consciousness from when they were awake, right?
>My objection is the strange idea that humans are automatons that are keyed off input like a clockwork machine and operate sequentially. This is clearly not the case.
Well, a few thoughts here. First, it's worth noting that the argument isn't necessarily that AI are conscious in the way that humans are, nor that humans are strictly automatons.
But I think the more interesting thing is that our understanding about consciousness has evolved quite a bit in just the last fifty to one hundred years. We used to think that only humans were conscious, but assumed that primates, cows, dogs, and other mammals were just automatons. Then we started to think: okay, maybe primates are conscious. Then eventually: well, dogs also seem to have consciousness, and then rodents, etc.
This has continued such that most people in the study of consciousness think all mammals are conscious, and the debate is shifting down to insects and other creatures that we do think/have thought of more as automatons. We don't actually know where to draw the line, because it's essentially impossible to really feel/know the inner states of other living beings.
In the face of all this uncertainty, Chalmers just points out that since we understand consciousness so little, that ultimately we should probably be less definitive in pronouncing which things do or do not have it.
> I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. Humans can be put into a similar state where they are unconscious and not thinking. Think of someone in a coma, for example, where we actually measure and confirm that there is no brain activity where they're in that state.
He was responding to your comment
> Funny enough, the models seemingly go insane and decohere into noise output in the absence of sensory input
The assumption being that "sensory input" is a prompt. What did you mean by sensory input?
Yeah, I have to admit to finding it somewhat ironic that some individuals accuse the "pro AI" folks of magical thinking, when it seems that escalating levels of magical thinking are being used by the "anti" crowd to suggest that the models can never achieve something akin to human intelligence (particularly in light of the fact that they have on certain dimensions done exactly that).
It's pretty clear that there are significant differences between their intelligence and human intelligence. But that doesn't mean there isn't some sort of intelligence here.
There's a dark future timeline where snark becomes the new "don't use any em-dashes" that people inject even more of to intentionally look human, since empathy and patience read as..robotic.
reply